Open Letter to Jim Carrey: I’m not a heartless MotherF*cker (VIDEO)

Growing up, I was a huge Jim Carrey fan. To say he had a profound impact on my adolescent self might be an understatement (The “So, you’re telling me there’s a chance” line was invaluable as an icebreaker at school dances and house parties). And, to be honest, I still find the childish antics and slapstick humor of the Ontario-born movie star quite funny.

In fact, I must admit, I laughed when I watched his pro-gun control video, “Cold Dead Hand.” I couldn’t help myself.

Although I fundamentally disagreed with its content, the part where he imitates Sam Elliot — I’m paraphrasing, but something to the effect of, “I’m Clearly Sam Elliot… biting social satire goes down smooth,” — caused me to chuckle.

In any event, and more to the point, I get where Carrey is coming from.

Like so many celebrities, he favors gun control because he believes tougher gun laws have the capacity to save lives.

More specifically, he believes that banning certain modern sporting rifles (aka ‘assault’ weapons) or standard (‘high’) capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds will somehow reduce gun-related violence and possibly prevent another mass shooting like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

“I am so proud of that country and everything it’s given to me, but I am also a naturalized American citizen and I have been bringing as much joy as I can to people in this country for 30 years,” wrote Carrey. “I care deeply about our future and I feel it’s my duty as a citizen to do everything in my power to make this a better place.”

So, what I’m not going to do is, I’m not going to tell Carrey to “Shut up” or “Go back to Canada” or to quit “Talking out his ass,” and I’m not going to call him “the most pathetic tool on the face of the Earth” nor wish that his career dies, and that “he ends up sleeping in a car the way his life began,” like others have.

Instead, I’m going to ask Carrey to examine the gun control debate from a different perspective, to shed his default-setting and prejudices about guns and gun owners (we’re ‘heartless motherfuckers unwilling to bend for the safety of our kids’) and look at the situation dispassionately.

To make things simple, I want Carrey to consider some facts and findings, listed below.

Concealed carry vs. crime statistics

Numerous studies have shown a negative correlation between concealed carry participation and crime statistics. That is to say, as more and more law-abiding citizens opt to carry concealed firearms for self-defense outside the home, crime rates actually decrease.

Take the ‘Gunshine’ State, for example. In January, Naples News reported Florida is in the midst of a “gun violence depression,” noting that “Firearm-involved violent crime rate dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time,” according to state records.

However, if that report is too localized, Carrey should examine this overall general trend in crime rates and concealed carry participation:

Concealed Carry Expansion

Crime Rates 1981-2010

Defensive gun use vs. gun violence victims

Each year, around 100,000 people are shot. Of those, around 30,000 are killed. Two-thirds of those victims — or roughly 20,000 — are suicides. The remaining 10,000 are homicides.

We know these numbers. We also know that of those murdered by guns, less than 4 percent are killed with rifles of any make or model. That is to say, ‘assault’ weapons are rarely used to kill innocents. The vast majority of gun-related homicide victims are killed with handguns.

Unfortunately, what we don’t know is the number of individuals who use or brandish a firearm to protect themselves, their family or their property each year. This stat is known as ‘defensive gun use’ or DGU. Conservative estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey put that number at about 100,000 DGUs per year.

The short point to make about all of this, we know that guns are used to injure and kill people. But we also know that guns are used to save lives and protect personal property. Again, we don’t know how frequently this happens, but it does indeed happen.

Acknowledging this fact is key to understanding the resistance many gun owners have to gun control legislation, particularly bills that would mar one’s ability to protect oneself at home, i.e. bans on standard capacity magazines and modern sporting rifles.

Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions … a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides … Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.

Ridgeway’s argument, unless the government rounds up all the modern sporting rifles in circulation an ‘assault’ weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. Moreover, even if there was complete retroactive ban on modern sporting rifles, there is only a chance that it “could” be effective. That is, there are no guarantees.

But even if Carrey opts to ignore those facts and findings, there’re still several practical questions to consider about the limitations of public policy with respect to stopping school shooters, which is what really reignited this whole debate.

To explicate, is it reasonable to assume that any of the proposed gun control measures would have stopped Adam Lanza from murdering those children at Sandy Hook?

Looking at the broader picture, if someone is determined, resourceful and semi-lucid, and they want to kill a bunch of people in a crowded place, is there any law on the books or any law being considered in the halls of Congress that would prevent them from doing so?

Short of establishing an Orwellian society, I’m not sure that there is. (Also, keep in mind, that the deadliest school shooting in U.S. History, the shooting at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead, was perpetrated by a gunman who had two commonly owned handguns).

Conclusion

So, what are the chances that Carrey reads this letter? Prolly zero. And on the off chance that he does, what are the odds he takes anything I’ve said seriously? One in a million?

Regardless, I’d bet that the reason Carrey supports gun control is twofold: (a) he is ill informed on the subject and knows very little about firearms and (b) he has no affinity for gun culture or gun owners.

Were he to spend some time hanging out with gun owners, learning about and shooting firearms, and really listening to the other side of the argument, he may have a change in heart — or at least he’d be less spiteful in his characterization of gun culture.

See, it’s easy for one to dismiss a right or a freedom that he/she sees no value in. What takes real strength and real awareness and real character is to see things from another’s perspective — to approach the debate with a little more empathy and a little less vitriol.

I’m not a “heartless motherfucker.” I’m just a gun owner. And, perhaps against my better judgment, a Jim Carrey fan.

It's amazing to me that the left characterizes people who are pro gun as illiterate, classless hillbillies. Most of the people that I know that own semi auto black rifles are educated, affluent businessmen, law enforcement and military personnel. The "hillbillies and rednecks" I know carry traditional hunting rifles and single action revolvers and I promise you if they wanted to shoot you they wouldn't need more than one round, seems to me they are pretty well trained with their arms. To say we are cowards as Mr. Carrey hides behind his armed security guards is a bit hypocritical.

A very well worded and well thought out article. I agree completely with the statistics. I disagree with the author's assessment of Carey and his motivation. I think that Carey is an obnoxious Hollywood "has-been" who'se career is in the toilet. This charade of a video is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get his name back in the news. It has succeeded in getting his name publicized, but not in the way he wanted. His career is over. He has managed to alienate the majority of the people in this country.

There's hardly a person on the planet that would less influence me on politics than this Canadian comic. Politics aside, I have always been able to watch Jim Carrey and remain completely straight faced. I never even thought he was funny as fire Marshall Bill.

Great article' however I am a former fan & unless an apology to me personally is undertaken by Carrey that is how it will stay. The only reason we even heard a faint hint of an apology was due to the overwhelming backlash he received from all of the people who will now NOT BE SEEING HIS NEW MOVIE! To me that is a heartless mother f#cker!

I appreciate the author's soft-touch response, but I don't believe that Carrey will accept logic when he is certainly put a tremendous amount of effort into his attempt to influence Americans through ridicule of things that he clearly does not understand. A comedian, sure - but he obviously looks down on rural America, which deserves better than his low-life hick characterizations. He obviously places himself above people like Charlton Heston, who led exceptional lives not only in their film work, but in social equality and our American freedoms. If he doesn't agree with the guy on guns, why the genitalia jokes, the cruel profanities, and the demonization of many millions of people who don't think like Carrey. He is insulting to Americans, without offering anything factual or constructive. I think that the many liberals who are trying to incrementally take apart the 2nd amendment are doing a great disservice to the well-being of our nation. Most of us are willing to have honest debate, while exposing the hypocrisy in our media and legislatures. Carrey just knowingly takes it down to a low, destructive level for a few laughs and an attempt to revitalize his career. Good luck with that!

I am always amazed at the ignorance of people who claim knowledge of what is necessary for all of us to be safe. The facts should be able to stand on their own and eliminate any rhetoric on gun bans and magazine limitations that will havue very little effect on the amount of gun violence perpetrated by criminals. President Obama ought to take a look at his own neighborhood in Chicago. A complete gun ban is on the books there and yet a 15yr old girl was gunned down in his neighborhood. Over 600 people died by gunfire last year in Chicago, where there is not even a store where you might purchase a firearm. It is a simple fact, where law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm, violent crime decreases. Gun bans do not work. Look at Chicago and Mexico where a complete ban on firearms is also in effect. In the last 3 years 55,000 people were killed by gunfire. I mourn the lost lives of Sandy Hook and Colorado and don't forget Columbine. It would be a sad day indeed when the government ignores the facts, acts on raw emotion and puts into effect laws and restrictions that will only cause more deaths by violent gun crimes.

I agree with the replies that Carrey is a douche. But as to the "who cares what a washed up comic says about politics" comment; That is scariest of all. How do you think obama got elected? by people who use common sense and listen to reason? No. The same people that elected our current dictator believe everything spoken or written by media talking heads and "celebrities". These idiots are incapable of thinking for themselves. Jim Carrey and all the other liberal ass-wipe celebs are irrelevant to me but to the grossly uninformed citizen, their word is gospel. Very scary and discouraging times in which we live.

Very well said. BUT.....As much as I USED to be a Carrey fan.....he has a brain, and the statistics are readily available. He could have done research and drawn an educated opinion. He chose to grandstand and ride the liberal wave that is so popular amongst his fellow "actors" (and I use the term lightly). If he is truly an American, and really feels the patriotism he claims for this country, he would apologize for this disgraceful display and support the second amendment.

What worries me the most is that there are people who actually believe these Hollywood types know what they're talking about. The ones who do, aside from Clint Eastwood, don't want to say anything because they might be outed as a conservative and never get an acting job again. By the 1st Amendment, clueless morons like Jim Carrey are free to make asses of themselves and attack our 2nd Amendment rights. Let's hear for the gospel according to Hollywood.

Wish that it were possible for the world to change over night into the Utopia the liberals believe would be so perfect, and were forced to endure it for a month; to actually experience the complete realities of what they long for. I think we'd have less liberals and could go back and live within the constitution after that. Too bad we'd all have to suffer through it if it were possible...but I'd be willing...

Here's a thought: as a naturalized citizen of the U.S., Carrey had to take an oath to our constitution. Now he is openlytrying to undermine it. Shouldn't that be considered treason, or at least ground for deportation? Imagine immigrating to another country and then trying to change the very foundation of their laws. You would probably be executed.